Deciding whether to pose in the black robe for a campaign ad is not just a matter of style and public relations for a judge — it also presents an ethical question.

Making the wrong choice on such a seemingly simple question can put a judge in hot water. They play by a strict set of rules that are aimed at maintaining their impartiality and upholding the appearance that they are impartial.

The clash over the way Arizona teaches English to kids who don’t speak the language is being waged on two fronts.

The more familiar one is in U.S. District Court in Tucson, where for the past 19 years the state has been defending Flores v. Arizona, a case that has driven funding and policy for teaching kids to speak English and has been to the U.S. Supreme Court and back.

Time has run out for school districts that aren’t compliant with the state’s English Language Learner program.

In the three years since the program, which requires four hours a day of English immersion for students who aren’t proficient in the language, was established, not one school district has been sanctioned financially for non-compliance, even though a sanction is required by law, according to a report by the Office of the Auditor General.

ASU law professor Paul Bender believes the Arizona Supreme Court wrote an unnecessarily lengthy ruling and dissent to explain its decision for allowing him to remain as a nominee for the Independent Redistricting Commission in January.

A new law that goes into effect later this month is aimed at speeding up police misconduct investigations, but cases that involve criminal acts will continue to be prolonged, allowing accused officers to collect paychecks while awaiting the outcome of their cases in court.

The Arizona Supreme Court on Friday justified its reasoning in allowing ASU law professor Paul Bender to remain as a candidate for the Independent Redistricting Commission by saying no use of the terms “public office” or “public officers” in Arizona law includes tribal officers.

A recent letter intended to clarify the federal government’s policies on prosecuting medical marijuana cases won’t put an end to the state’s lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Justice, Arizona Attorney General Tom Horne said July 6.